Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ojmar U.S., LLC v. Security People, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 5, 2018

OJMAR U.S., LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., and ASIL GOKCEBAY (a.k.a. BILL GORDON), et al., Defendants.

          CRAIG J. MARIAM, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, MICHAEL D. KANACH, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, P. GAVIN EASTGATE, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., and ASIL GOKCEBAY (a.k.a. BILL GORDON)

          DEFENDANTS SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. AND ASIL GOKCEBAY'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE BY ASIL GOKCEBAY AT THE UPCOMING MOTION HEARINGS PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-10; ORDER.

          Hon. Haywood S Gilliam, Jr. United States District Court Judge.

         TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

         Defendants SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. and ASIL GOKCEBAY (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully submit this ex parte application for an order that ASIL GOKCEBAY be permitted to appear by telephone for the hearings scheduled for April 5, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. In support of this request, undersigned counsel represents that (1) counsel for Plaintiff OJMAR U.S. LLC and counsel Forrest Hainline, Esq. of Goodwin Procter do not object to this request; (2) Defendant will be represented at the hearing by counsel appearing in-person from Gordon & Rees; and (3) Mr. Gokcebay is Defendants' person most knowledgeable about the facts related to the motions and seeks to appear for this hearing by telephone because he and all of his staff are in Hong Kong and unable to appear in person.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Goodwin Procter's Motion to Withdraw and Defendants' related Motion to Continue Trial are both set for hearing on April 5, 2018. On April 3, 2018, the Court issued an Order requiring that a client representative for Defendants with knowledge regarding the factual basis for those motions personally attend the hearings. Asil Gokcebay is the person with knowledge of those facts and he is available telephonically but not available to attend in person in Oakland, California, on April 5. Immediately after receipt of the Order requiring a client representation attend, Gordon & Rees contacted Mr. Gokcebay. Mr. Gokcebay is out of the country, in Hong Kong, along with all of his staff, leaving no one with the necessary knowledge who can personally attend the hearing on Thursday as required by the Order. Mr. Gokcebay has advised that he can appear by phone, and Defendants therefore request that the Court issue an order that Mr. Gokcebay be permitted to attend the hearing telephonically.

         II. ARGUMENT

         Pursuant to Local Rule 7-10 and the Court's inherent authority to issue orders controlling its process, Defendants seek relief from the Order requiring that an employee of Security People/Digilock personally attend the hearings on the pending motion to withdraw and motion to continue as no such person is in the country.

         On April 3, 2018, the Honorable Court issued an Order requiring that “[a] client representative of Defendant Digilock with knowledge of the matters described in the pending motion to withdraw (Dkt. No. [177]) and motion to continue trial date (Dkt. No. [179])” appear in person at the hearings of those motions on April 5, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Dkt. No. 189. Defendants represent that Asil Gokcebay is the client representative with the most knowledge regarding the facts contained in the motions. Declaration of Craig J. Mariam at ¶ 2. Immediately following receipt of the Order, counsel for Defendants communicated with Mr. Gokcebay, who represented that he is in Hong Kong, along with all of his staff, and therefore neither he, nor any other Security People/Digilock employee with knowledge pertinent to the hearing, is available to attend the hearings in person. Id. Mr. Gokcebay represented that he would be available to call in for the hearing at 2:00 p.m. PDT, which will be approximately 5:00 a.m. local time in Hong Kong. Id. at ¶ 3. Counsel for Defendants then immediately communicated these facts to counsel for Plaintiff and co-defense counsel at Goodwin Procter to advise them of the issue and inquired whether they objected to Mr. Gokcebay appearing by phone. Id. at ¶ 4. Both counsel affirmed that they did not object to this request given the foregoing. Id.

         As Mr. Gokcebay and all of his staff will be in Hong Kong at the date and time set for hearing on this motion, and as no counsel objects to the request, Defendants ask for relief from the Order requiring that a Security People/Digilock employee attend the hearing in person, and request that Mr. Gokcebay instead be permitted to appear by phone.

         Counsel from Gordon & Rees will attend in person, and we understand counsel from Goodwin Procter and counsel for Plaintiff Ojmar will also attend in person. One attorney for Plaintiff Ojmar will be attending via telephone. Dkt. No. 188.

         III. CONCLUSION

         Based upon the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that Asil Gokcebay be permitted to appear by telephone for the hearings ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.